Alternative take: it's disgusting and offensive to the foundational concept of blind justice that punishment is more highly correlated with charisma and obsequiousness to judges than it is to actual crimes committed.
First of all, the Theranos people haven't yet been brought up on criminal charges, but it's still possible they could be, no?
Secondly, I think there were lots of material differences between the two cases that caused them to be prosecuted differently. You can't just lump every instance of fraud as the same thing.
[1] The reason I only kind-of agree: you're phrasing it in a way that makes it seem clear. But I can easily phrase it as "it makes sense that defendants who show remorse, and are therefore less likely to commit the crime again, will get a lighter sentence, as opposed to defendants who are much more likely to repeat the crimes".
I agree courts, juries and judges are to be neutral, but a person like him just ends up getting under most people's skin. Even if there was no rational decision to go hard on him, I wouldn't be surprised if people subconsciously make that decision.
Criminality and psychopathy are tightly correlated, particularly with fraudsters. Psychopaths are excellent at faking remorse and other emotions that they do not actually feel.
I would not want the punishment of a criminal dependent on their acting skills.